Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Cases

Proposed new language

I would accept a mediation request along the following lines:

What's going on?

The current title of the article 9/11 conspiracy theories has been contentious for a long time now. Recently, the issue was re-opened on the talk page. No consensus was readily apparent, and the extended discussion was marked by hostility and repetitiveness.

Those editors who support a move to

9/11 alternative theories
feel that "conspiracy theories" is POV language and that it implicitly casts doubt on the validity of the theories. They argue that not all alternative theories are conspiracy theories, and that the mainstream account also theorizes a conspiracy. They tend to feel that their views are being suppressed or censored, and that policies which support them are being ignored.

Those editors who support the current title feel that "alternative theories" is POV language and that it implicitly boosts the credibility of theories which reliable sources treat as bunkum discredited. They argue that the theories explained in the article fit the definition of "conspiracy theory," and that reliable sources use that term far more frequently than any alternative. They tend to feel that the other editors are pushing a fringe agenda, and are repeatedly proposing changes that have no chance of garnering consensus support.

What would you like to change about that?

Both !sides would like to see this issue discussed in a more structured fashion, with more civility and respect. Each !side would like the other to acknowledge that they have valid points in the discussion, and ideally to determine which title (if any) is in best accord with

WP:CONSENSUS
.

<eleland/talkedits> 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent and gets all of us off to a much better start. It's very often that request details get a little hot-headed when editors feel frustrated and have little recourse, and I hope Ireneshusband won't mind me replacing his with this. The format Party-Issue-Arguments-Feelings is excellent. If anyone objects to any of the particulars in this request, please say so; but I think the presentation is perfectly sound. I'll replace all !sides with "everyone", does that sound right?
Xavexgoem (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I would prefer a more schematic summary like:

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the current request filing sound to you? I'm aiming to keep the request as civil as possible; I don't want people coming here with a bad impression, and a list might not satisfy everyone's requirements. This is good information to have, and will add them to the issue list (when we get to that point). Sorry, didn't mean to load that question: is the current request sound?
Xavexgoem (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems to be neutral and civil. It could eventually be made more complete by citing the policies involved in the arguments. It seems however to focus too much on the alternative title
9/11 alternative theories is considered the best replacement between who wants a change (even if it is considered better than the current title).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed; I'll change the wording to be more general. It will be made more complete as the case continues, but this is just the request details.
Xavexgoem (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, I'll have to give this some thought. I'm not entirely aware of the gray areas yet. The wording will change, but I'm not sure to what. Suggestions?
Xavexgoem (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Which name for exactly which article?

It has been mentioned before by someone, but I only now realised how crucial that question is:

Given the title, this could be an article:

  1. describing unanswered questions;
  2. describing alleged cover-up of failure to act adequately;
  3. describing allegations of LIHOP;
  4. describing allegations of MIHOP;
  5. describing theories of motives for alleged LIHOP / MIHOP scenarios;
  6. describing the psychology of conspiracy theorists;
  7. describing urban folklore myths with no base in reality.

Uptil now, I had always assumed that this article was intending to describe 1, 3 and 4. I would not wish it to describe 5, since there are so many of these that most of them are propably tiny minority viewpoints. But was I judging hastily? Do all others share my view?

During the present discussions, I am beginning to think that some feel that nr 6 and 7 ought to be presented in this article. I think it is very confusing (not in the last to ourselves, the editors) to have so many angles in one article. Especially, without acknowledgeing the angles specifically. Should we fork this article, and decide on new titles for the subarticles? What do you people think ?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

Has a request ever been placed on this page regarding this topic? If so could you please place a link for it. Seddon69 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 15 February 2008 and 15 December 2006. Those might not be the only two. I only skimmed the last few archive pages. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YESPOV

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting

pejoratively
. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Shortcut

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, writing sympathetically about each side; but they are not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. [1]

emphasis added  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Naming conventions (events)

This guideline, the only one I know which values the most common name above a neutral one, stems from this discussion:

  • quoting
    Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_9#Proposal_for_articles_on_events_and_activities
  • Background
    Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict currently says, to use "the most commonly used term in English." It also says to "choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." The page not seem to directly address cases where these guidelines conflict, i.e. when the most prevalent term used to describe a topic happens to carry a POV implication.
    A recent example of a conflict between these two guidelines was the debate over the naming of Deir Yassin massacre. In two recent ArbCom cases, the committee indicated (with some dissent) that the commonly used term should take precedence [3],[4]. Arbitrator SimonP noted that, "The project page seems contradictory on this matter." Should the article be clarified to make a preference for common terms explicit? Kla'quot 08:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    See also: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_title and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Naming_conventions. Kla'quot 08:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


My interpretation: a non-neutral name for an event was deemed acceptable when the non-neutrality was deemed justified by the community. I am not sure I agree with those decisions: they seem judgemental to me. I can understand from a human point of view, but I feel perhaps wikipedia should not have done that. (I have too little knowledge of the subject to have a final opinion on this.)  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more snippets

Thanks Kirill and Simon. Good point about September 11. I'll add to rule #2 that "To keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, even if there is scholarly consensus that an event was an act of terrorism, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed." Kla'quot 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main discussion
  • Some quotes I like:
    1. What reliable sources write about that concept (including their considerations about the viability and about the self-contradictory properties of such expression) goes in the body of the article, not in the article name, per Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names. --Francis Schonken 09:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    2. By the way, an ongoing pain point is that it is often unclear to the casual reader which of these guidelines is being followed. The casual reader is likely to notice that Wikipedia's article names tend to use neutral and descriptive terms, and may assume that all articles use neutral and descriptive terms unless the article is tagged with Template:POV-title. I don't know how to solve this problem. Kla'quot 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    3. I like the concept of "standing expression." Regarding articles on controversial political terms and articles on controversies, debates, mythical creatures, analogies, etc. - I was kind of hoping nobody would bring this up yet because my brain hurts when I think about it. I'll bring in some thoughts later. Here are some more ideas on naming articles about events.

So that's how it came about.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above is not relevant. The terms you reference are, unlike 9/11 conspiracy theories, subjects of legitimate debate in reliable sources. No reliable sources consider the 9/11 conspiracy theories to be anything other than conspiracy theories, going by the evidence thus far presented. There is a huge difference between a government policy where terminology is disputed by that government (as with Israeli apartheid), and a conspiracy theory which is called a conspiracy by many reliable sources, and where said definition is not disputed by any reliable sources. There are reliable sources to dispute that Israel engages in apartheid, there are no reliable sources to dispute that the Truther theories are conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what do we agree on?

I am concerned that this discussion might not evolve towards consensus. Maybe it is time to see what we DO agree on? I would say there can be some consensus on:

  • what the core of the content of the article we're considering renaming is;
  • whether "conspiracy theories" has a pejorative meaning, next to the factual one;
  • whether we agree that CT's is the most common used term;
  • tentatively: that our debate is whether the title should be neutral or the most common (or that the current title meets both);

Perhaps a less fruitfull avenue would be to discuss the purposes we all have for discussing this. This might not help reach consensus, but it could cut short a lot of cross talk.

  • My purpose is, that all views should be presented neutrally, fairly, and proportionately. That includes the view I hold at this moment, which happens to be akin to a significant minority view, and several fringe ones as well (which I will not present), and several mainstream ones regarding this subject. (I emphasize "at this moment" because contrary to some other people I know, my beliefs change over time, with new information and new insights.)  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that saying "whether "conspiracy theories" has a pejorative meaning, next to the factual one" is a good way to consider things. The pejorative meaning can be considered irrelevant if (in each case) being a "conspiracy theory" can be considered as an objective unobjectionable *fact* (in this case there will be people saying that "it is not pejorative because it describes a true fact"). If otherwise "being a conspiracy theory" is just a disputable opinion (for the cases we are considering) then the pejorative meaning is indeed relevant and
WP:NPOV would apply. So what must be addressed is not the pejorative meaning: it is the nature of the claim "X is a conspiracy theory": fact or opinion. I personally think that it is very likely to be just opinion and it would be very hard to defend the position that it is a fact. Obviously if there is doubt or dispute about whether it is fact or opinion we should assume it is an opinion and act as it was the case.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for doing this, Xiutwel. I want to know too, what do we agree on?
Xavexgoem (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

How fringe is this, anyway?

I think this is a relevant question. Does any RS pollster have statistics on this?

Xavexgoem (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

See [1]. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-)
Humm... This is something to mull over.
Sorry if it appears I'm taking my time. I'm at a bit of a loss, but I'm narrowing the problem down, methinks.
Xavexgoem (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The neutral academic meaning describes a sociological phenomenon, correct? Or have I got this wrong? Haemo seems to be making this case the strongest, so I'd like his input on that.

Xavexgoem (talk
) 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) (or anyone elses :-p)
Xavexgoem (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

We have a wikipedia article about the sociological phenomenon of ->
conspiracism is a strong claim IMHO and need solid sources to be stated a as a fact in wikipedia.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Whereas to state that a theory is a conspiracy theory, one need only demonstrate that this is how the reliable sources identify it. Happily in this case the sources are unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we all know from the project page there are long discussions about the above claim by Guy and several arguments against it that should be addressed before stating the claim.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, we have some apparent True Believers asserting that their fringe POV and
WP:COMMONNAME, but nobody outside that select band seems to think it's a problem. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I think to be neutral and to be working to apply
WP:NPOV. Who are you talking about?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, hush you two! :-)
I still would like Haemo to clarify the meaning for me.
What the academic meaning of the term generally refers to results from a particular type of sociological response to an event, usually traumatic in nature. It is not the same as conspiracism; which is a totalizing world-view — all people who ascribe to conspiracism necessarily believe in conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories do not imply a belief in conspiracism. Conspiracy theories are part of what Foucault called an episteme — that is, a system of knowledge (like a paradigm) within society. It is, however, a very peculiar one (the "paranoid style") which has attracted academic attention for its relationship to the "mainstream" episteme and politics. If someone, especially an academic or a journalist, calls something a "conspiracy theory" they are describing an attribute of not only the theory proposed, but the proposer as a well — that's part of why it's so terribly wrong to say that what the mainstream presents as the facts (so-called "Official conspiracy theory") is a "conspiracy theory". It's vacuous wordplay. --Haemo (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that meaning, why does the article cover the actual theories and not the meaning?
Perhaps I've mixed up academic meaning with other neutral meanings?
Xavexgoem (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That';s a red herring. The idea of some notional "academic meaning" is being floated in order to try to pretend that there is less of a distinction than actually exists between the official account and the Truther theories. Discussion of this so-called "academic" definition is pure
novel synthesis
that any mention of the word conspiracy in respect of the mainstream account (e.g. the Al-Quaeda conspiracy) makes it a conspiracy theory. This is an absurdity. A conspiracy theory is a well understood term of art meaning a theory that posits collusion and cover-up at a high level. The official account does not posit collusion and cover-up, the Truther theories do, and that's probably why they are credibly identified by independent sources as conspiracy theories and the official account is not.
I do believe this mediation is doomed, since it is essentially a request by frustrated Truthers to recruit support for their position. Many editors have been involved with this article over the years, and the intersect of neutral editors following policy and editors who want a rename appears to be the null set. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as a request by frustrated Truthers to recruit support for their position. I'm not a supporter of any of the conspiracy theories (except gov incompetence and suppression of debate) and I fully support a name change not because it supports CT's but because it treats it neutrally. I object to your description of "editors following policy" as "neutral" as research will show that almost all have used disparaging language for theorists or tried to get the article deleted in the past which is hardly a "neutral" position. From experience with the article I've found that editors are divided thusly. The majority support the government account at the expense of any pretence at neutrality and a small minority are "frustrated Truthers" along with a similar number in the grey area surrounding neutrality. Some editors are neutral (I include supporters of both OCT and CT's) but not enough to "out edit" the majority who want truthers to look like tin foil hat wearing morons. I sadly suspect there are only possibly three truly neutral editors taking part in this mediation. Wayne (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a disparaging question: how many times has this lack of trust come up? If > 3, no need to mention again ;-)
I'm far more interested in people's take to the comments I've made below, which is a move into the right direction.
Only Wayne may indent past this point.
Xavexgoem (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Or I will whack you with a trout[reply
]

This is an editor dispute

It seems to me that "conspiracy theory" is indeed both a neutral word and a pejorative one. Not everyone is trying to poison the well with the term, though. I think this whole thing is a fundamental breakdown of

WP:AGF
. This is an editor dispute long before it is a content dispute, and the comments here and at the article are evidence of that.

I've been copy-editing large parts of the article, and think that introducing the academic meaning of "conspiracy theory" would be far more insulting than the current name of the article. The article still has real issues, and I think that editors should focus their attention on a quality, NPOV article, and not

assume
that the name is there just to muddy the waters. It's an insignificant bit. Do not judge a book by its cover!

I know that the neutrality of "conspiracy theory" is a gray area, and many people feel it is not neutral at all. It's one of those dirty words that can mean either a good thing or a bad thing, so I agree on that point. Compare "liberal", "nationalist", "feminist" etc: people make categorical assumptions. I can't resolve that dispute, and people have been trying for centuries to do so.

Assume good faith!!

enforcement
, which will only fan the fires and make these problems much worse.

This is tentative. I'm still open to suggestion. But in light of the incivility, the assumptions of bad faith, I do not think medcab can resolve this naming dispute. Arbcom certainly cannot.

Xavexgoem (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm all for more independent eyes on the article, it's been subject to a to-and-fro battle between Truthers and rational skeptics for a long time and the syntax is fractured in many places as a result. Mediation appears to have been requested largely in order to weasel a name-change, which I see above that you do not support either (nobody but Truthers does, as far as I can tell). As such, mediation itself is probably moot. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it's not a matter of me "supporting" or "rejecting"; the requested dispute was not the actual one, if you catch my meaning.
Xavexgoem (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup, I understand. So, remanded to article RfC? Guy (Help!) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I mean, do you want more people involved? :-P
I mean something
WP:5P
) and give gentle guidance.
This isn't my final decision (not that I can have one). I'll bring this up to the case page later.
Xavexgoem (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ha! More neutral people would be good, but more Truthers is certainly not what we need. But you're not going to get much in the way of productive collaboration from people who are ideologically opposed to the way the reliable sources describe a subject, at least in my experience. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More Truthers may be what you need, among others. They know what they're talking about, and many of them are willing to learn accepted practices on wikipedia.
Xavexgoem (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Some of them are. However, all too many editors barge in with the
assume good faith". --Haemo (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
"Some of them are". They're the ones that matter.
Xavexgoem (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No, not really. We can document this neutrally without the need for True Believers. Not to say they won't be welcome when they come, as long as they are prepared to abide by policy, but all to many of them aren't, because in the end
WP:NPOV is to us - people who arrive only to Right Great Wrongs are almost always a problem at some level, and people who are long-standing Wikipedia editors and incidentally Truthers are both uncommon and already present. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
"No, not really"? Truthers who edit in good faith are as acceptable as anyone.
Xavexgoem (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
on this very page. It's not a surprise why this is an "editor dispute", as you put it — when one side repeatedly accusing the other of being paid shills to cover up the murder of thousands, there's a fundamental disconnect about what they're here to do. --Haemo (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're cherry-picking. Part of assuming good faith is not generalizing.
I understand that offending anyone; with a back-log of diffs, there is nothing keeping you from taking these things to AN/I. On the other hand, you can ignore them. Or you can laugh like a mad scientist for they know nothing, and only you know the truth of your secret CIA connections! ;-)
Xavexgoem (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you mean by me saying that I can't resolve a naming dispute if everyone is still fighting? Some other example?
Xavexgoem (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I find it very ironic that you can argue with a straight face that the problem is that you have a "different interpretation" of the policies. I'd point out that you've been arguing the same points for nearly two years on these articles, and the only thing that changed during that period was your argument. The policies never changed — only your argument about what they say. Apparently you've had many "different interpretations" of policy over the years — all of which happily align to advance your personal POV on this issue. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ For more details, see the Undue Weight section in this policy.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12_9/11_conspiracy_theories&oldid=206446671"